David, thanks for your comments and literature recommendations which are
much appreciated.
Regarding the 'cognition' debate in general, (deep breath.).
Some common ground might be found in the cognitive biology of Maturana and
Varela, particularly their notion of 'structural coupling'. This provides an
account of how consensual (in the simplest sense of mutually intelligible)
and embodied 'phenomenological domains' may be said to arise between
organisationally distinct biological systems (such as humans) though a
process of 'structural drift', which is the emergent history of the
organism's being in the world. Phenomenological domains, from this
perspective, include language (M&V's main concern) but also non-discursive
forms of social behaviour and communication such as spatial organisation
(which are not exclusive to humans).
- From an analytical point of view, structural coupling identifies
social phenomena as the outcome of an emergent structuring process between
organisms and their environment which offers the possibility of measurement.
- From a phenomenological point of view, the emphasis is on cognition
as something which is *enacted* in the world through the history of
structural couplings of the embodied human organism - (rather than the
'unveiling' of categories that exist external to human experience). This
offers the possibility of a phenomenology which is better equipped to
explain how individual lifeworlds come together to create shared domains of
meaning through encounter (analytically - 'society').
In AI-computer science it is probably true to say that it is the possibility
of modelling and measuring the 'mechanisms' of structural coupling that is
attractive. This is the position of my co-author on the symposium paper I
mentioned, Tom Quick, and (I think) Alasdair. Such an approach usually
involves working with simple agents in simulated software environments to
understand how such systems adapt and become self-organised. Where
appropriate, these findings can inform real-world situations which might,
analytically speaking, be too complex to get a handle on otherwise.
From my point of view, the notion of structural coupling can inform an
historical account of how individuals come together *over time* to create
incredibly complex entities like societies (cities, spatial configurations,
languages) which are sustained despite consistent change (not least of
personnel). It does this by arguing that it is because of, rather than
despite of, their complexity that human beings are fundamentally open to the
world rather than isolated from it.
Sam
*********************
Sam Griffiths
Research Fellow, EPSRC Towards Successful Suburban Town Centres
The Bartlett School of Graduate Studies University College London
1-19 Torrington Place
London WC1E 7HB
tel: +44 (0)207 679 1833
email: [log in to unmask]
web: http://www.sstc.ucl.ac.uk/
|